“Paradigmatic Controversies, Contradictions and Emerging Confluences Revisited” by
LINCOLN, LYNHAM and GUBA
The authors outline that an ‘important issue’ can mean several things dependant on who
is defining the issue where characteristics can include:
Widely debated – validity becomes an issue
New awareness (like role of values)
Influence of one paradigm over another
New or extend theoretical or field oriented treatment are available – voice and reflexivity
becomes an issue
The new contradicts earlier formulation debating method, paradigm or ethics
Foregrounds larger social movements undermining qualitative research in the name of
science
It is pointed out that paradigms are shifting and are considered more fluid. This is critical
to allow qualitative research to make a significant impact on policy formation and the amends of
social ills. The authors themselves take on a constructionist viewpoint where the real is defined
in terms of community consensus and what has meaning within that community. For them, social
phenomena includes meaning-making activities which can be changed if found faulty,
incomplete, and malformed.
At first, the idea of values was given the label of being an issues; however, the authors go
on to later identify it as an axiology. Axiology is defined as “the branch of philosophy dealing
with ethics, aesthetics, and religion” (p. 116). This concept is being increasingly defined out of
the scientific inquiry since it concerns religion.
Naturalistic inquiry and where values fit into the inquiry process:
Choice of the problem
Choice of paradigm to guide the problem
Choice of theoretical framework
Choice of data gathering and analysing methods
Choice of context and treatment of values within context
Choice of format for presenting the findings
Within the naturalistic paradigm, qualitative methods are stressed simply because these types of
methods are easier to the human-as-instrument idea.
Commensurability (definition: measured by the same standard) between paradigms
(positivist and constructivist) is not possible; however, within each paradigm a solution may be
mixed methods. The answer given by the authors to the question “are paradigms
commensurable” is a cautious yes when the models share axiomatic elements.
Positivism and postpositivism = commensurable
Positivism and interpretivist = not commensurable
Cumulation (definition: the gathering or accumulation of) is often thought of as impossible
within qualitative research meaning that it cannot be aggregated to make larger understandings
or policy formulations possible; however, the authors would disagree. They think that since the
LINCOLN, LYNHAM and GUBA
The authors outline that an ‘important issue’ can mean several things dependant on who
is defining the issue where characteristics can include:
Widely debated – validity becomes an issue
New awareness (like role of values)
Influence of one paradigm over another
New or extend theoretical or field oriented treatment are available – voice and reflexivity
becomes an issue
The new contradicts earlier formulation debating method, paradigm or ethics
Foregrounds larger social movements undermining qualitative research in the name of
science
It is pointed out that paradigms are shifting and are considered more fluid. This is critical
to allow qualitative research to make a significant impact on policy formation and the amends of
social ills. The authors themselves take on a constructionist viewpoint where the real is defined
in terms of community consensus and what has meaning within that community. For them, social
phenomena includes meaning-making activities which can be changed if found faulty,
incomplete, and malformed.
At first, the idea of values was given the label of being an issues; however, the authors go
on to later identify it as an axiology. Axiology is defined as “the branch of philosophy dealing
with ethics, aesthetics, and religion” (p. 116). This concept is being increasingly defined out of
the scientific inquiry since it concerns religion.
Naturalistic inquiry and where values fit into the inquiry process:
Choice of the problem
Choice of paradigm to guide the problem
Choice of theoretical framework
Choice of data gathering and analysing methods
Choice of context and treatment of values within context
Choice of format for presenting the findings
Within the naturalistic paradigm, qualitative methods are stressed simply because these types of
methods are easier to the human-as-instrument idea.
Commensurability (definition: measured by the same standard) between paradigms
(positivist and constructivist) is not possible; however, within each paradigm a solution may be
mixed methods. The answer given by the authors to the question “are paradigms
commensurable” is a cautious yes when the models share axiomatic elements.
Positivism and postpositivism = commensurable
Positivism and interpretivist = not commensurable
Cumulation (definition: the gathering or accumulation of) is often thought of as impossible
within qualitative research meaning that it cannot be aggregated to make larger understandings
or policy formulations possible; however, the authors would disagree. They think that since the
